CNPD (Portugal) - Deliberação 2019/297: Difference between revisions
m (→Dispute) |
m (→Facts) |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
}} | }} | ||
Portuguese DPA considers that an organisation is the controller of personal data when employing the services of a direct marketing company | Portuguese DPA considers that an organisation is the controller of personal data when employing the services of a direct marketing company to promote its products or services, even if using its database for direct marketing purposes. | ||
The direct marketing company, even if using its database for direct marketing purposes, acts on behalf of the controller and is a processor. | |||
==English Summary== | ==English Summary== | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
A data subject complained about receiving unsolicited direct marketing emails from | A data subject complained about receiving unsolicited direct marketing emails from Deco Proteste (the largest Portuguese Consumer Protection organization). | ||
The data subject never provided her/his personal data to Deco Proteste and, as a result, never consented to receiving direct marketing emails from the organization. | |||
After the investigation by the CNPD, 45 other unsolicited direct marketing emails, between the dates of 11th of October 2011 and 5 of June 2013, were added to the complaint. | |||
===Dispute=== | ===Dispute=== | ||
Deco Proteste claimed that the personal data of the data subject was part of a database owned by a direct marketing company it had subcontracted to provide direct marketing services. As such, it is the direct marketing company that is the controller, not Company A. | |||
===Holding=== | ===Holding=== | ||
Portuguese DPA considered that all direct marketing emails sent by the direct marketing company were of products and services offered by | Portuguese DPA considered that all direct marketing emails sent by the direct marketing company were of products and services offered by Deco Proteste. | ||
It also considered that Deco Proteste freely, voluntarily and consciously decided to process personal data without any legal basis to promote its products and services, neglecting its legal obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act of 1998, in force at the time of the offenses. | |||
The fact that Deco Proteste used a third party to assist in direct marketing of its products does not exclude controllership status of Deco Proteste, even if the database used was owned by the direct marketing company, which is considered by the CNPD as a processor acting on behalf of Deco Proteste, the controller. | |||
==Comment== | ==Comment== | ||
<br /> | |||
==Further Resources== | ==Further Resources== | ||
https://www.dn.pt/pais/comissao-de-protecao-de-dados-aplica-coima-de-107-mil-euros-a-deco-11515689.html | |||
==English Machine Translation of the Decision== | ==English Machine Translation of the Decision== | ||
Revision as of 12:36, 28 March 2021
| CNPD - Deliberação 2019/297 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | CNPD (Portugal) |
| Jurisdiction: | Portugal |
| Relevant Law: | Personal Data Protection Act (Act 67/98) |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 06.05.2019 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | 107.000 EUR |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | Deliberação 2019/297 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Not appealed |
| Original Language(s): | Portuguese |
| Original Source: | CNPD Website (in PT) |
| Initial Contributor: | Jose Belo |
Portuguese DPA considers that an organisation is the controller of personal data when employing the services of a direct marketing company to promote its products or services, even if using its database for direct marketing purposes.
The direct marketing company, even if using its database for direct marketing purposes, acts on behalf of the controller and is a processor.
English Summary
Facts
A data subject complained about receiving unsolicited direct marketing emails from Deco Proteste (the largest Portuguese Consumer Protection organization).
The data subject never provided her/his personal data to Deco Proteste and, as a result, never consented to receiving direct marketing emails from the organization.
After the investigation by the CNPD, 45 other unsolicited direct marketing emails, between the dates of 11th of October 2011 and 5 of June 2013, were added to the complaint.
Dispute
Deco Proteste claimed that the personal data of the data subject was part of a database owned by a direct marketing company it had subcontracted to provide direct marketing services. As such, it is the direct marketing company that is the controller, not Company A.
Holding
Portuguese DPA considered that all direct marketing emails sent by the direct marketing company were of products and services offered by Deco Proteste.
It also considered that Deco Proteste freely, voluntarily and consciously decided to process personal data without any legal basis to promote its products and services, neglecting its legal obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act of 1998, in force at the time of the offenses.
The fact that Deco Proteste used a third party to assist in direct marketing of its products does not exclude controllership status of Deco Proteste, even if the database used was owned by the direct marketing company, which is considered by the CNPD as a processor acting on behalf of Deco Proteste, the controller.
Comment
Further Resources
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Portuguese original. Please refer to the Portuguese original for more details.
